Re: Bugs to be fixed... (LONG)
 

I plan to diversify crossbow into "light crossbow" (9ap, 25 range, less accurate), "crossbow" (10ap, 30 range, more accurate), and "heavy crossbow" (11ap, 35 range). The stats, names, and number of types are subject to change... but this will make it easier to balance the costs of the indy crossbowmen. Arbalests will remain unchanged.

This will also affect longbow considerations...

Re: Bugs to be fixed... (LONG)
 

Are you sure so much variety existed ? To me there was Light and Heavy type, the heavy being also called "Arbalest" (French name). And anyway I'm not sure that minor differences between the types are worth the effort...

Re: Bugs to be fixed... (LONG)
 

Range 25 and range 35 have a HUGE difference, but I don't think the middle one is needed. I would make one "heavy crossbow", which is still weaker and more expensive than arbalest, and "light crossbow", which is much weaker than even the "heavy crossbow".

Of course, I'm not going to do the balancing work, and if Saber Cherry needs the third one, then I trust that she knows what she is doing.

Re: Bugs to be fixed... (LONG)
 

Much more variety than that existed http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Just like with guns or hunting knives today... a class called "Medium Crossbow" would be about as specific as "Assault Rifle" or "Antipersonnel Mine," each of which has hundereds of types with wildy varying characteristics. Crossbows were pre-mass production, so they would be even less standardized. AFAIK, of course.

v7.31 released.
 

Hi!

I just put out v7.31, which has some very minor changes. Incidentally - I have not done this previously - I just realized it would be better (confusion-wise) if I put the name of the version in the filename, so it displays in the mod preferences screen, and people don't accidentally overwrite an older version that they are using for a current game. Therefore, the latest file name is "Recruitable Rebalance 731.dm"

If you downloaded it before I changed the filename (it appears exactly 1 person did), please download it again http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Sorry!

v7.31:

Ulm Black Plate units increased to 14g (to better reflect their runic armor and sealed helmets).
Ulm Black Knight / Templar increased +5g (same reason) to 70 and 100g.
Ulm Guardian increased +2g (same reason).
Longbow / Man elite longbow gain +1gcost (to 13g) since AP longbows are super good. I may change them back to non-AP eventually, depending on feedback.
Tien Chi Celestial Masters changed back from 2 air to 2 water. I had changed them to better enable casting of national spells (fly and celestial soldiers) but with Zen's magic mod, the change is not needed, and it prevented them from casting acid spells.
Slightly reduced Celestial Master price (250g S&A, 240g normal)

Re: v7.31 released.
 

Did someone finally abuse the crap out of them in your test games? I'll be honest I did try a test game with them as soon as you made them and I was able to clear the map at a pretty silly rate http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

As for celestial masters, I really like the little mod I made for them ( of course! ) where I chanhed the cost to be in line with Scott's formula and where I gave t'ien Ch'i 50 gold 1S casters to act as communicants and magic duel sponges. Worked *very* nicely.

Re: v7.31 released.
 

Wellll... longbows have not been particularly abused in the test game (Man is ranked about 3 or 4), but I played around with them a bit, and found them exceptionally strong. That, combined with comments in the test game thread and this thread, made me think that 9AP, 40 range, at 12 gold is unbalanacing. At 13 gold, they come closer to parity with cheap xbows. 13g is not a final solution, more like a patch to make them less "uber" while pondering a final solution http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Fortunately, only Man - a somewhat weak nation, due to capitol-only troops and mages - has the ability to abuse longbows, since they natively only occur on grasslands (as far as I can tell). So it's not a very important issue, especially once storm, Staff of Storms, and Arrow Fend come into play. However, I want to rectify it by v8, and I'm considering a poll on the ideal cost and damage of longbows. Especially considering that the scientific data presented in this thread portrays them as being substantially weaker than most crossbows.

Re: v7.31 released.
 

Well I've felt for quite a while that crossbowmen are the most cost efficient non-sacred troops in the game. So I'm not sure using them as a balance point is super.

OTOH I do find the new longbowmen fun to use I know I ( personally ) would break even if I was in heavy armor if a bunch of guys were shooting arrows at me!

How did you addition of the flail attribue to the lowbowmen work? Were they useful units? They would probably no longer break HC but they would be pretty decent against infanty.

Re: v7.31 released.
 

I won a game recently, Marignon (me) versus Machaka, fielding almost nothing but crossbows and Witch Hunters, and without using flaming arrows or wind guide. So you may be right about that. On the other hand, I rarely see other people use them unless they are playing Marignon. And they're essential as a last defense against SCs, as far as I can tell.

#Flail works for missile weapons. I tried it out on AP longbows, and they annihilated indies instantly. Not a good modding change http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif I did not try 14 non-AP plus #flail, but it would probably be similar versus medium infantry, though less effective on heavy cavs. Regardless, I see no reason why longbows should hurt people if they hit the shield. Arbalests, maybe... boulders, Jotun javelins, and castle ballistae, probably. And I plan to make those changes, after testing to see if boulders already ignore shields.

Anyone have any opinions on changing Arbalest to 11ap or 12ap + ignore shield? That would make it more useful against most enemies, and less lethal to Ulmians. In other words, people might recruit them instead of Sappers...

Well, I'll start a poll on longbows and crossbows tomorrow http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Overpriced commanders
 

Nice mod. I don't agree with everything (I've always liked Jotun Woodsmen), but it's a really impressive effort all the same.

Some suggestions/points:

The Lord Warden: At 130 gold, this unit is absurdly expensive. He's a good fighter and an OK commander, but not nearly enough to justify the cost. The Warden is already a rather pricey sacred unit (Tuatha are cheaper and better) and there's no justification for having a commander version which costs more than 3X the price of the basic unit. He might well be the most expensive infantry commander in the game. Hell, 130 gold will buy you an top of the range cavalry leader.

The Mother of Avalon is the same price, has the same leadership, is also sacred and stealthy and is a mid-level mage. She's also a much more useful addition to a stealth force.

T'ien Chi Light Cavalry: It's always bothered me that these guys don't have a hoof attack. Granted, they might not be riding trained warhorses, but I like to think of hooves as an intrinsic mounted bonus. Maybe a lesser hoof attack for light cav, versus a warhorse hoof for the heavy cavalries.

Conquerors of the Sea: The mages are priced fairly for this theme, IMO. However, the sailing commanders are dreadfully overpriced; 75 or 100 gold for a commander with rubbish equipment, average stats, and ok leadership? Granted, they have the sailing skill, but Vanheim gets that for nothing. Compare an admiral (100 gold) to a Vanherse (160 gold). The admiral has better leadership, but the Vanherse is vastly superior in every other way, including upkeep!